Enterprise Architecture Planning (EAP) for Universitas Pattimura using TOGAF ADM
The application of Enterprise Architecture (EA) is an important concept required by large-scale tertiary institutions. Application of EA that helps. The importance of EA starts from structuring SI strategies that support lectures, Information Technology (IT) services, data, applications and future technology. The Strategic Plan and Master Plan for Pattimura University Development become a reference in the implementation of EAP, and also interviews for students, lecturers and employees of IT management become the author's research method, thus finding concrete data to be used by Pattimura University EA. TOGAF ADM is work or framework that supports the company's architecture and is also a method of developing a company's architecture used by researchers. Blueprints of business architecture, data, information systems applications and technology are the results of EA modelling that is applied to the Pattimura University distribution room. TOGAF ADM in the Preliminary Phase or the initial phase of a corporation, data, application and technology. In the Architecture Vision phase, it produces an architectural vision between business architecture, data, applications and other technologies. In the Business Architecture phase, it produces a business architecture blueprint. In the Information Systems Architecture phase, it produces a blueprint for the SI architecture, and in the Technology Architecture phase, it produces a blueprint for the IT architecture. The application of the EAP method at Pattimura University has a positive impact because it produces an alignment of business strategies and IT strategies is very important to be applied.
 N. A. A. Bakar, S. Harihodin, and N. Kama, “Assessment of Enterprise Architecture Implementation Capability and Priority in Public Sector Agency,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 100, pp. 198–206, 2016.
 R. Ansyori, N. Qodarsih, and B. Soewito, “A systematic literature review: Critical Success Factors to Implement Enterprise Architecture,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 135, pp. 43–51, 2018.
 L. A. Kappelman and J. A. Zachman, “The enterprise and its architecture: Ontology & challenges,” J. Comput. Inf. Syst., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 87–95, 2013.
 E. I. Niemi and S. Pekkola, “Enterprise architecture benefit realization: Review of the models and a case study of a public organization,” Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 55–80, 2016.
 R. Foorthuis, M. van Steenbergen, S. Brinkkemper, and W. A. G. Bruls, “A theory building study of enterprise architecture practices and benefits,” Inf. Syst. Front., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 541–564, 2016.
 H. T. Wagner and J. Meshtaf, “Individual IT roles in business - IT alignment and IT governance,” Proc. Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., vol. 2016-March, pp. 4920–4929, 2016.
 S. Kaisler and F. Armour, “15 Years of Enterprise Architecting at HICSS: Revisiting the Critical Problems,” Proc. 50th Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., no. January, 2017.
 H. Tsuchiya, S. Yamamoto, Y. Murakami, T. Yanagisawa, N. Kobayashi, and J. Wan, “TWO-STAGE THIRD-PARTY REVIEW PROPOSAL USING the ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE in SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 126, pp. 1187–1196, 2018.
 M. Zhang, H. Chen, and A. Luo, “A Systematic Review of Business-IT Alignment Research with Enterprise Architecture,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, no. March, pp. 18933–18944, 2018.
 G. P. Negara, A. Wahju, and R. Emanuel, “Enterprise Architecture Design Strategies for UGK Using TOGAF ADM,” no. October, 2019.
 A. K. Jallow, P. Demian, C. J. Anumba, and A. N. Baldwin, “An enterprise architecture framework for electronic requirements information management,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 455–472, 2017.
 N. Mayer, J. Aubert, E. Grandry, C. Feltus, E. Goettelmann, and R. Wieringa, “An integrated conceptual model for information system security risk management supported by enterprise architecture management,” Softw. Syst. Model., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 2285–2312, 2019.
 J. S. Suroso and M. A. Fakhrozi, “Assessment of Information System Risk Management with Octave Allegro at Education Institution,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 135, pp. 202–213, 2018.
 V. Goepp and M. Petit, “Insight from a comparison of TOGAF ADM and SAM alignment processes,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 11707–11712, 2017.
 R. Pergl, R. Lock, E. Babkin, and M. Molhanec, “Organizational Modeling,” pp. 159–173, 2017.
 J. P. Meneses-Ortegon and R. A. Gonzalez, “Knowledge management framework for early phases in TOGAF-based enterprise architecture,” IC3K 2016 - Proc. 8th Int. Jt. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Knowl. Eng. Knowl. Manag., vol. 3, no. Ic3k, pp. 31–40, 2016.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
JATIS oleh http://jurnal.mdp.ac.id/index.php/jatisi disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.